Hmmm....but though e.r. and s.r. are equally important in tests, the first is more important than the second in ODIs...i.e. if 2 bowlers have similar averages in ODIs, then the one with better e.r. definitely has the upper hand, s.r. is not of much importance there...but there is also a catch in ODIs, e.r. of bowlers of 70s, 80s and early 90s is bound to be better than than of bowlers in late 90s and later. So a clear-cut comparison can't be made between bowlers of these two ODI eras; although a comparison can be made after discounting by a factor maybe...

I'm only talking about Tests. In ODIs, I honestly don't care greatly about SR - ER is overwhelmingly the more important factor. Even if you don't take any wickets, you can still restrict totals by bowling economically (though obviously the truth is that if you restrict in OD cricket, batsmen don't just play out overs and finish 170 for 2, they'll try and up the rate and end-up throwing their wickets away).

Very true...And that's why average is a much better measure of test match bowling performances than strike rate or economy rate because it can pass the test of time...average depends on both s.r. and e.r. and that's why a bowler from previous years who had better e.r. but worse s.r. can be compared to a bowler from recent ages who has the opposite...but of course even averages shouldn't be taken in isolation...so many other factors do play a part like the pitch, the quality of batting, the size of ground, the quality of bats to name a few...

No it isn't. Average only gauges the performance in terms of runs conceded per wicket. In tests, you need to take wickets. Averaging low, with a complementing ER, yet striking very slowly does your team no favours in regards to time. The quicker you take wickets and finish off a match the better. Yes, in some instances, speed is not required, but that's not the point. Because when you have two bowlers and you will want wickets you want the one who is able to do so - which is more often than not the situation.

Averaging low, with a complementing ER, yet striking very slowly does your team no favours in regards to time. The quicker you take wickets and finish off a match the better.

No, winning in 4 days 2 sessions is no different whatsoever to winning in 2 days 1 session. Test cricket lasts 5 days, 15 sessions, and 450 (or 444 once three changes of innings have happened) overs. As long as you strike quickly enough to take 20 wickets in this time, it's all the same.

oreilly took five wickets per test match giving away less that 23 runs per wicket (the best ever for a leggie). he took a wicket, on average, every 12th over.

warne took 4.5 wickets per test conceding less than 26 runs and he, on average, took a wicket every 10th over.

if one was quicker in taking wickets the other one was conceding less runs per scalp despite bowling two more overs. strike rate and economy in this argument should nullify each other. warne struck faster, oreilly bowled tighter. deuce.

look at wickets per test, oreilly comes on top.

That's because O'Reilly bowls 62 overs a Test whereas Warne bowls about 47. If Warne had bowled the same amount per test he would have more wickets per test - it's that simple. He would also have more big hauls.

Consider the game today, no bowler would be given 62 overs to strike every 12 overs. You need to take wickets faster and one that can is much preferable to one that can't. It's like comparing a Ford and a Ferrari. Both can take you to the same destination within an alotted time, but one can do it faster and gives you the option to do other things.

Let's think of it in this way: Let's say both bowlers take 4 wickets: Warne will concede 101 runs and will take 38 overs to do so; O'Reilly will concede 90 runs and will take 46 overs to do so. The difference is then 11 runs in favour of O'Reilly but 8 overs in favour of Warne. Even at O'Reilly's low ER, if he were to bowl the extra 8 overs, he would concede 16 runs...that's 5 runs over the alotted 11. So in terms of wicket taking AND keeping runs down Warne is ahead. Because, of course, the less overs you bowl the less you concede. And if you can take the same amount of wickets but bowl less and hence concede less runs then you are, in this comparison, superior.

No, winning in 4 days 2 sessions is no different whatsoever to winning in 2 days 1 session. Test cricket lasts 5 days, 15 sessions, and 450 (or 444 once three changes of innings have happened) overs. As long as you strike quickly enough to take 20 wickets in this time, it's all the same.

Bowling so many overs per match is always a window to let the opposition in or a risk in weather. Bowling so many overs per match when you can bowl less, give your batsmen a rest and start the next innings is always better. Also, the fact that one can do it quicker than the other is a matter of having more skill, regardless if it is needed or not. I think we had this discussion before, there are many reasons and scenarios where being able to strike quicker is simply better. No one bowls more overs and tries to concede little if they can actually take wickets faster. That would be stupid, just because the time-frame may allow it.

Bowling so many overs per match is always a window to let the opposition in or a risk in weather. Bowling so many overs per match when you can bowl less, give your batsmen a rest and start the next innings is always better.

Not really. Some batsmen appreciate maximum time between innings, some always want to bat again soon. And no cricket or cricketer should ever be judged by the fact that the weather has interfered. Never. You play a Test expecting it to last its course. With any luck, we'll eventually have a situation where overs aren't lost and these multiple silly criticisms of cricketers because the weather has disadvantaged them will be removed.

Also, the fact that one can do it quicker than the other is a matter of having more skill, regardless if it is needed or not.

Bowling overs for less runs also involves more skill than bowling the same for more runs - the same difference in skill between taking wickets more quickly or more slowly.

Not really. Some batsmen appreciate maximum time between innings, some always want to bat again soon. And no cricket or cricketer should ever be judged by the fact that the weather has interfered. Never. You play a Test expecting it to last its course. With any luck, we'll eventually have a situation where overs aren't lost and these multiple silly criticisms of cricketers because the weather has disadvantaged them will be removed.

Bowling overs for less runs also involves more skill than bowling the same for more runs - the same difference in skill between taking wickets more quickly or more slowly.

See

"Let's think of it in this way: Let's say both bowlers take 4 wickets: Warne will concede 101 runs and will take 38 overs to do so; O'Reilly will concede 90 runs and will take 46 overs to do so. The difference is then 11 runs in favour of O'Reilly but 8 overs in favour of Warne. Even at O'Reilly's low ER, if he were to bowl the extra 8 overs, he would concede 16 runs...that's 5 runs over the alotted 11. So in terms of wicket taking AND keeping runs down Warne is ahead. Because, of course, the less overs you bowl the less you concede. And if you can take the same amount of wickets but bowl less and hence concede less runs then you are, in this comparison, superior.

BTW? Which batsmen in their right mind wants to have more time fielding and less time batting? That's just a bizarre statement. Also, it is not to blame, per say, a player for weather. But the fact is that it's a common end to a match and you'd have to be foolish thinking you can have bowlers with an SR of 70 and expect to get away with it.

Let's think of it in this way: Let's say both bowlers take 4 wickets: Warne will concede 101 runs and will take 38 overs to do so; O'Reilly will concede 90 runs and will take 46 overs to do so. The difference is then 11 runs in favour of O'Reilly but 8 overs in favour of Warne. Even at O'Reilly's low ER, if he were to bowl the extra 8 overs, he would concede 16 runs...

Not likely, considering he takes 12 on average. And regardless, we are trying to keep the same ratios in terms of average, economy rate and strike rate. So if we were to assume he'd take another wicket we should also give Warne another wicket which would again put him in the lead. This is the difference between SR and ER. If O'Reilly had at least kept the total runs he conceded down despite bowling the extra overs, then that would be a starting point - but he doesn't.

South Africa were far from pathetic by the 1930s. They hadn't been so since 1905/06 in fact.

Look, we've discussed this. I brought a truckload of bowlers and their records Vs S.Africa and pretty much everyone showed very good to amazing figures against them. You'd really have to be stupid not to accept this. This isn't an insult, but a general statement. To ignore that many bowlers and their record Vs S.Africa is just idiocy.

And the link above is just for 3 teams. How many bowlers could 3 teams possible have? ****, even Stan McCabe does well against them. Pretty much all the top ones improved on their career figures. I've seen you go to some depth defying lows, but this one is a new level.

Some batsmen like time between innings - as do near enough all bowlers.

So batsmen like getting tired fielding and then like going in batting with less time than they otherwise would have gotten if the bowlers had bowled faster... Do you EVER read the crap that you type?

Not likely, considering he takes 12 on average. And regardless, we are trying to keep the same ratios in terms of average, economy rate and strike rate. So if we were to assume he'd take another wicket we should also give Warne another wicket which would again put him in the lead. This is the difference between SR and ER. If O'Reilly had at least kept the total runs he conceded down despite bowling the extra overs, then that would be a starting point - but he doesn't.

You are trying to make stats work in a way they don't. Your last example was poor, I tried to improve it, and you're now making it worse again.

Look, we've discussed this. I brought a truckload of bowlers and their records Vs S.Africa and pretty much everyone showed very good to amazing figures against them. You'd really have to be stupid not to accept this. This isn't an insult, but a general statement. To ignore that many bowlers and their record Vs S.Africa is just idiocy.

And the link above is just for 3 teams. How many bowlers could 3 teams possible have? ****, even Stan McCabe does well against them. Pretty much all the top ones improved on their career figures. I've seen you go to some depth defying lows, but this one is a new level.

Virtually no bowlers took any notable numbers of wickets against South Africa, as I said the previous occasion we discussed it. The few who did were all bowlers of note, and\or played in a single series only. And you can easily find similar sets of figures for all bowlers against any team at any time through history. Anyway, I have no interest in discussing this issue as you do not realise the realities. You could just as easily discount Shane Warne's wicket tally against England as O'Reilly's against South Africa.

So batsmen like getting tired fielding and then like going in batting with less time than they otherwise would have gotten if the bowlers had bowled faster... Do you EVER read the crap that you type?

You are trying to make stats work in a way they don't. Your last example was poor, I tried to improve it, and you're now making it worse again.

EDIT: I think I know what you're saying. But, if it were about more likely to take the next wicket in terms of Warne, he will concede 10 more runs than the allotted 11 but he'd be about an over away from taking a wicket. If you mean that's how it should be calculated, then it can be, and id take Warne still.

Virtually no bowlers took any notable numbers of wickets against South Africa, as I said the previous occasion we discussed it. The few who did were all bowlers of note, and\or played in a single series only. And you can easily find similar sets of figures for all bowlers against any team at any time through history. Anyway, I have no interest in discussing this issue as you do not realise the realities. You could just as easily discount Shane Warne's wicket tally against England as O'Reilly's against South Africa.

All bowlers, part-time and front-line took wickets and cheaply. You cannot deny it. Too many bowlers did. Your lack of interest in argument purveys this point. Comparing Shane Warne's England to O'Reilly's S.Africa is like comparing England, in this era, to Zimbabwe. Get a grip, the differences are too large to deny.

What's hilarious is in the above you put a qualification of 20 wickets. 20 wickets? In that era you would be lucky to play a team that many times to have just 20 wickets against a single opponent. What's funny is that even when you do that, the number of bowlers is still large .

BTW O'Reilly's test career started in 1932, not 1906. You're trying to pick at the stats in this way as well. I thought you may have not understood but to purposely try and fix stats shows you're inclinations and that you really aren't holding your point because you think you are right...but because you don't want to be wrong. Poor form.

Batting is far, far more tiring than fielding. Ever played cricket?

Standing in one place for hours on end is tiring, let alone fielding as well. I have played Cricket, evidently more than you. Batting is also tiring. Do you know what makes it even more tiring? Having to score faster because your bowlers did not give you enough time. It's also more likely to make you less successful as a team if forced to do that. It might be so that in an amateur's league you see your friends wanting more time between innings, but a Test class batsman worth his salt will want to bat and make as many runs as he can. Without that mentality, he would have never reached the top level.

Huh? Would you mind explaining that? The calculations above are what make sense. What you said makes nothing, least of all sense.

The calculations you attempt to give break mathematical law. Re-read them again, carefully.

All bowlers, part-time and front-line took wickets and cheaply. You cannot deny it. Too many bowlers did. Your lack of interest in argument purveys this point. Comparing Shane Warne's England to O'Reilly's S.Africa is like comparing England, in this era, to Zimbabwe. Get a grip, the differences are too large to deny.

What's hilarious is in the above you put a qualification of 20 wickets. 20 wickets? In that era you would be lucky to play a team that many times to have just 20 wickets against a single opponent. What's funny is that even when you do that, the number of bowlers are still large .

Nonsense, on both counts. South Africa circa 1906-1939 were so much stronger than Zimbabwe 2003-2006 it's untrue. England were often pretty poor in Warne's career, especially against Warne-style bowling, but they were still easily good enough to be playing at the level. Likewise, South Africa weren't especially good, but still good enough to compete mostly and win sometimes.

And the fact that not that many bowlers took 20 wickets against one opponent in the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1930s means that there's a hell of a lot of bowlers who can have no proper conclusions drawn about them. And someone trying to use their cases to prove so much as a single thing would be clutching at straws.

Standing in one place for hours on end is tiring, let alone fielding as well. I have played Cricket, evidently more than you. Batting is also tiring. Do you know what makes it even more tiring? Having to score faster because your bowlers did not give you enough time. It's also more likely to make you less successful as a team if forced to do that. It might be so that in an amateur's league you see your friends wanting more time between innings, but a Test class batsman worth his salt will want to bat and make as many runs as he can. Without that mentality, he would have never reached the top level.

That he wants to bat doesn't mean that batting is less tiring than fielding. For both things, you have to concentrate for long periods, and expend physical energy. For batting, you have to do far more than for fielding.

But it's far far more enjoyable, and the reason why people become batsmen. I'd rather belt the ball than chase leather.

Cricketers do not play as specialist fielders. And you can only belt the ball if you have the ability to do so - batsmen don't choose to become batsmen, they just happen to be good at it. If you don't have the requistite skills, you can't become a good batsman. Obviously, you have to enjoy it too, but enjoying batting is not the most important thing in being a batsman.